Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, deputy chief of the Russian military and technical cooperation agency, said that Russia will still continue with previously agreed exports, but will refrain from sending any new arms to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Washington has expressed guarded approval for Moscow’s decision, saying it’s a good sign but not enough.

“We have repeatedly raised our concerns with the Russian government at a variety of levels,” State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said. “We’ve expressed our belief that continued arms sales to the regime will only further throw flames on the fire, so we want them to stop all arms transfers, not only existing contracts but any new contracts as well.”

One of Russia’s main concerns regarding Syria is that Washington will try to usher in regime change, and possibly military intervention, and exploit any political transition for their benefit, thus stamping out Russia’s valuable Middle Eastern ally. So US demands that Russia stop all arms transfers are laughable so long as Washington and its allies in NATO and the Persian Gulf continue to flood the country with arms.

UN envoy Kofi Annan said last week that while Russia has received a lot of criticism for continuing to back the violent President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, “very few things are said about other countries that send arms and money and weigh on the situation on the ground,” without naming any specific countries.

Similarly, UN rights chief Navi Pillay last week condemned the continued flow of weapons from foreign powers to both sides in the Syrian conflict. “The ongoing provision of arms to the Syrian government and to its opponents feeds additional violence,” she said in the text of remarks made to the Security Council. “Any further militarization of the conflict must be avoided at all costs.”

Now that Russia has made at least partial moves in that direction, US meddling in Syria should likewise stop. Otherwise, Annan’s plan for a peaceful political transition is impossible.

Author: John Glaser

“We’ve expressed our belief that continued arms sales to the regime will only further throw flames on the fire…” Shut the fok up!

What a hypocritical and idiotic statement from a guy who knows that the CIA, Turkey, and the Arab cabal have not stopped arming the Al Qaeda and Jihadist terrorists that are fighting the people of Syria.

Cold Wind

This move was completely expected. Russia: no princibles, always gaming. Not a good ally.

ML3

Washington's world order dictates EVERYONE ELSE bends over and willfully spreads their cheeks wide at our say so. Who still listens remains to be seen.

I've said this before: Assad is not going anywhere. He is correct when he says that he wouldn't still be in the position he is in now (particularly under the circumstances)…much less standing…and certainly not prancing around doing interviews on German TV if he didn't have "strong support" of "the people"… He has more credibility in my estimation, based on what I've actually heard, than anyone else I've heard on this. People should actually 'listen' to "all sides" before drawing conclusions. This is one of the basic concepts of a "court of law". Listening to shills, college students, "terrorists", Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, John McCain, John Kerry, the slobbering buffoons on Cable News Networks, the self describe "Middle East Experts" in think tanks, David Cameron, Barack Obama and a self described "Human Rights Organization" based in Paris France which coordinates the flow of weapons and militants into the Nation of Syria–all of who have second/third/fourth/etc. hand 'knowledge' of the conflict–the primary "source" of which is typically each other–many probably who have never even been to Syria, and even if they have, it was mainly limited to a 5 star hotel room in Damascus or a the 5th floor of a bombed out apartment building in Homs firing at security forces with a sniper rifle for Allah (or whatever)–all with vested interests and "perceptions"/"delusions" of their own–none of which are accountable to the civilian population in Syria or have to run the domestic civil affairs and/or cater various domestic political interests inside the nation of Syria–relying solely on these "sources" alone when making any "conclusions"–I don't think this is wise.

Additionally, a Nation has a right to "defend itself"–particularly in the situation of an armed invasion and/or insurgency–even if the armed militants are the nations "own people". The State also has an obligation to "protect its people". This is generally accepted I would think (although I know some here may disagree with a State altogether; but I know of no "Stateless" modern cohesive societies with millions of people at present–so that is more "theoretical" …

nobama

its funny how u people voice your contempt when it is syria and bashar that is being attacked by armed groups and calling it self defense when he bombards neighborhoods with tanks and artillary. Yet when the israelis do the same thing agains't armed milittias all of a sudden they r the aggressors and the armed militias r victims of the evil zionists. Such political hypocrites u people r!